AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 200 wordsHarbans Singh, J.
The Judge, Designated Gurdaspur, vide his order dated August 22, 1987, has allowed bail to Gurinder Singh petitioner in the Arms Act case. In the bail I order it his been held by the Judge, Designated Court that Sections and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, (for short the Act are not attracted. The recovery of the arm i.e., 32 bore revolver and five cartridges from Gurinder Singh for which Arms Act case was registered relates to this very incident only separate first information report was registered.
Joginder Singh is stated to be 70 years old and empty handed. The allegations against Jaswinder Singh are that he was armed and some arm and ammunition have been recovered from him. The circumstances of the case show that the allegation against Gurinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh are identical. The learned Judge, Designated Court has come to the conclusion that sections 3 and 4 of the Act are not attracted.
Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I feel that it is a fit case where the petitioners should be allowed bail. I order accordingly. They are allowed bail to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Gurdaspur.